1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates generally to golf clubs. More specifically, the present invention is related to an improved croquet-style golf putter.
2. Discussion of Prior Art
Winning is paramount to virtually all avid golfers with most matches decided by a very small margin of victory. Thus, what better way to reduce one's total score than to improve his or her outcome consistently with the only club used on every hole in a round of golf, the putter. Putters are numerous to say the least, but that is a good thing, for all problems that are worked on by so many, the evolution is fast and the end result is great. The problems that still exist today in the prior art are dwindling, and this present invention will virtually eliminate the inadequacies of those putters cited.
Conventional golf putters require a golfer to stand perpendicular to the path a golf ball will travel. Also, golfers are required to twist their neck to alternate looking at a cup and a ball, all while hunched over their putter. Croquet-style putters attempt to alleviate the inherent difficulty of using a conventional putter by allowing a golfer to face in the direction of the putt and use a more natural, pendulum-like swing from a more natural body position. However, the design of previous croquet-style putters have created their own disadvantages.
Summary of disadvantages of prior art croquet-style putters
The point of shaft attachment to the putter head in most prior art is off center, creating an undesired hand position which is not above the putter head at the time of impact, this hand position can result in the putter head twisting to one side causing an errant shot. PA1 The shaft attachment to the toe of the putter head resulting in the putter head being too far from the user to keep an accurate travel path during the swing. PA1 The attachment of the shaft to the rear of the putter head which causes the center of gravity to be displaced from the striking face to a point somewhat behind resulting in less consistency. PA1 Prior art putters in many instances are not in accordance with U.S.G.A rule 4-1b which states, "the axis of the shaft from the top to a point not more than 5 inches above the sole must diverge from the vertical in the toe-heel plane by at least 10 degrees", thus several prior art putters would be subject to disqualification in U.S.G.A. sanctioned events. PA1 Most prior art is used in a motion across the front of the user, from one side to the other, in a somewhat unnatural swinging of the arms as one unit. PA1 A Striking face having a convex curve is found in at least one prior art, to be forgiving on directional inaccuracy; the inventor did not take into account the spin put on the ball by an off center strike with such a design. PA1 The sliding of some prior art putters over the putting surface would undoubtedly make for many poorly hit putts, as the user would be reliant on the condition of the putting surface. PA1 Croquet-style putters designed to be used between the legs or to be used with one foot behind the ball limit the backswing of the user. PA1 Most prior art is designed to be used solely with a two-handed grip in which the user will experience inconsistencies caused by one hand being dominant over the other hand, and the variances created by having the user's wrists involved as part of the swing. PA1 Prior art in some cases have made the design of the putter reliant upon specialized grips, many of which are impermissible per U.S.G.A rule 4-1c. PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,382,019 issued to Wilbert Sneed on Jan. 17, 1995; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 2,843,384 issued to Theodore Schmidt on Jul. 15, 1958; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,163,554 issued to Floyd Berhardt on Aug. 7, 1979; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,065,133 issued to Ambrose Gordos on Dec. 27, 1977; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,411,429 issued to John Drew et al. on Oct. 25, 1983; PA1 U.S. Design Pat. No. 375,131 issued to Daniel Williams on Oct. 29, 1996; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,486,755 issued to William Hodge on Dec. 30, 1969; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,447,313 issued to Richard Finley on Sep. 5, 1995; PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,319,962 issued to Roger Summers on May 16, 1967; and PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,240,636 issued to Ronald Swenson on Dec. 23, 1980.
Specific discussion of prior art:
The patent to Kronog.ang.rd (U.S. Pat. No. 5,454,564) discloses a golf putter having a bent shaft wherein the shaft is attached to the putter head eccentrically. This design with the angled shaft results in the putter having a swing line too far out from the user's side. The attachment of the shaft to the toe of the putter head displaces the center of gravity and thus the sweet spot on the striking face. The offset shaft placement also distorts the user's ability to correctly align the putt.
The patent to Drake (U.S. Pat. No. 4,227,694) discloses a golf putter with the shaft extending horizontally in front of the putter head which is used as an aiming device. This horizontal extension requires the second bend in the shaft located approximately midway up the shaft to return the upper shaft to a usable position. The U.S.G.A has a rule Appendix II 4-16, "The shaft shall be straight from the top of the grip to a point not more than 5 inches (127 mm) above the sole." This rule would prohibit this putter from being used in U.S.G.A sanctioned matches, because of the second bend. This putter also requires a two handed grip even though it is front facing putter, with the user standing behind the ball.
The patent to Garber (U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,552) discloses a three-sided putter of which two of the sides are striking faces. Both faces are perpendicular to one another as well as being perpendicular to the top of the putter head. This is in contrast to rule 4-d of U.S.G.A which states, " . . . faces must be opposite one another . . . " The hosel attaches to the rear or third side of the putter and causes the shaft to extend generally straight upward. This feature alone is in contrast to the U.S.G.A rule which states, "The shaft must diverge from the vertical toe to heel plane by at least ten degrees." The perpendicular striking faces at the time of impact will cause the ball to skid somewhat before the ball begins its rotation, thus creating another variable to be overcome. The following list often patents have at least one, and in many cases more than one, of the above-detailed disadvantages: